Responsible and sometimes critical comment on topical legal matters of general interest. This blog does not offer legal advice and should not be used as a substitute for professional legal advice.
Pro Aequitate Dicere

Wednesday, 6 March 2013

Worrying trends - No. 4 ~ Strip Searches of the young

Two years ago this month, the Youth Justice Board (YJB) announced the
end of routine strip searching in children’s secure establishments. (View its
press release here). Despite the promise to move to risk-based strip-searching, official data
shows thousands of locked up children are still being forced to expose their
naked bodies to adults in authority.

"Institutionalised child abuse" is an accurate description of this egregious breach of children's rights (Thousands of children are still being strip-searched in custody,
3 March). As John Drew, chief executive of the Youth Justice Board,
knows full well, this widespread dehumanisation and humiliation of
children breaches the UN convention on the rights of the child and is
inflicted on those, often most vulnerable, for whom his state body has a
duty of care.

As a signatory to the convention, the UK government
and its agencies are committed to upholding the rights of children
established in articles and protocols and clarified in the UN
committee's General Comments.
A central obligation, particularly for those held in custody, is the
principle of the "best interests of the child". Children also have a
right to privacy and bodily integrity. The extent of strip-searching
demonstrates the neglect of best interests and the denial of privacy.

Those
of us who have worked and researched with children and young people are
well aware of the severe damage caused by the reality, fear and
intimidation inflicted by strip-searches. Also our work with women in
prison clearly revealed that the suffering endured is universal and not
restricted only to women or children previously abused. For John Drew to
seek justification in the dubious criteria of "risk assessment" is
unacceptable. It is well-established that the threat and reality of
strip-searching is punitive, administered as an extension of
discretionary power, and rarely associated with evidenced risk or
imminent danger.

A further letter from several bodies concerned with criminal justice was published:

That some of society's most vulnerable children are subjected to
routine strip-searching is deeply shocking and requires urgent action.
In any other setting such treatment would be viewed as child abuse. The
automatic strip-searching of women prisoners ended in April 2009
following the review by Baroness Corston, who described strip-searching
as "humiliating, degrading and undignified". We know from our work with
children in custody and their families that such treatment contributes
to distress and self-harm, and the risk of suicide. We call upon
ministers to amend the rules governing secure establishments to
prescribe the extremely limited circumstances in which it would ever be
permissible to make children in institutions remove their clothes and
underwear.

In January 2006, Lord Carlile QC's report on the use of physical restraints, strip searching and seclusion of children in custody was published. A good summary of the report is at Community Care 17th February 2006. Carlile found that
children are regularly put through “demeaning and dehumanising”
strip-searching, painful physical restraint and long periods of
isolation. Strip searching is considered at pages 53 to 59 of the Carlile Report. The report did not recommend that strip searches cease altogether. Rather, Carlile recommended that searches could be reduced by at least 50% by applying a more evidence based approach, without risk to security or safety being significantly increase.

See also Minority Perspective 5th March 2013 - where it is argued that Ministers must amend the rules
governing secure establishments to prescribe the extremely limited
circumstances in which it would ever be permissible to make children in
institutions remove their clothes and underwear. Staff must be required
to undertake this intrusive process in a humane and dignified manner,
which includes providing children with gowns; refraining from shouting
at, and verbally insulting, them; and never, ever cutting off their
clothes.

About Me

Peter Hargreaves LL.B (Hons). Live in Greater Manchester but spend as much time as possible in N. Yorkshire. Politically, closest to the Lib Dems than any other! Retired after 40 years in civil aviation. Life long interest in law about which there is much misinformation and misunderstanding. My blog seeks to look at topical items and their complexities and tries to explain things in a straightforward way. Obiter means "by the way" and my posts are "by the way." I hope that the posts are responsible, balanced and informative but it is for you, the reader, to make up your own mind. I do not seek to persuade you. At all times I will try to speak for fairness - Pro Aequitate Dicere.